|
Long before Mark Twain stood on Wall Street and saw
it was a "street with a river at one end and a graveyard at the other,"
there has been financial manipulation and scams. During the Punic Wars
against Carthage, businessmen offered to ship supplies to Rome's army on
condition the state insured their ships and cargos against loss. With
the insurance in place, the businessmen loaded un-seaworthy ships with
rotten goods and scuttled them at sea.
Recent history has seen more than its share of
abuses. During the 1980s, Salomon Brothers foisted overpriced
mortgage-backed securities on savings & loans as a way for those
institutions to "enhance yield." We soon had the savings & loan crisis
to clean up. In the early 1990s, we had the structured notes scam, which
involved selling leftover "toxic waste" to unsuspecting Midwestern
insurance companies. Even younger professionals remember the dot-com
boom, when hundreds of worthless internet companies were hyped to the
investing public.
Wall Street's best scams are those that involve
coordinated, overwhelming hype. We saw this in the dot-com bubble, and
we are seeing it now, beautifully executed, with hedge funds. Anywhere
you look—newspapers, magazines, television, websites, books,
congressional hearings—you learn that hedge funds are run by superstar
managers employing brilliant investment strategies to reap extraordinary
profits for their sophisticated investors. Like the dot-com bubble
before it, this is a crock of shiitake.
Most of the "sophisticated" investors jumping into
hedge funds—including too many pension fund, foundation and endowment
trustees—don't hold graduate degrees in finance. They know little, if
anything of the efficient market hypothesis. Based on extensive
empirical studies over several decades, this concludes that investment
managers don't add value for investors. Their portfolios routinely
under-perform the market before fees and expenses. When fees and
expenses are factored in, they under-perform by a wide margin. An
investment manager who outperforms one year is no more likely to
outperform the next year than is any other manager. Occasionally, there
are managers like Peter Lynch who outperform reasonably consistently for
several years, but these are rare—fewer than we would expect if
performance each year were purely random. After all, if you get enough
people together in a room flipping coins, several of them are going to
flip ten heads in a row.
Anyone who has delved into the literature on
efficient markets should smell a rat when thousands of hedge funds are
being launched each year, all flamboyantly claiming they can earn
returns massive enough to cover their typically 2% management fee, 0.4%
"administrative fee" and 20% incentive fee, not to mention the enormous
brokerage fees the funds rack up on their frenetic trading.
Now don't tell me the proof is in the pudding,
because there is no pudding when it comes to hedge funds. Mutual funds
are required to report their net asset values daily. If the mutual funds
are willing to buy or sell shares at those values, the numbers have to
be reliable. Hedge funds, on the other hand, are not required to
disclose daily valuations. If they do, these are just whatever numbers
the hedge fund manager comes up with. Investors aren't allowed to buy or
sell shares at those values, so the numbers could be (and often have
been) bogus.
There are various hedge fund indexes compiled by
the hedge fund industry. These purport to track hedge fund performance.
They boast exceptional returns, but there are numerous flaws in how the
indexes are compiled. Those flaws bias returns upward by several percent
while biasing volatility downward to an even higher degree.
I won't delve into all the sources of bias in those
indexes, but let's look at two. One is survivor bias. Reporting is
voluntary, and hedge funds can stop reporting their performance whenever
they like. I don't know what indexes Amaranth reported their performance
to, but I can't imagine them taking the time to communicate their
staggering losses to the indexes as the fund imploded. Why should they
bother? I doubt any of the other numerous funds that have failed over
the years bothered to make sure the indexes had the ugly numbers
describing their death spirals. The hedge fund indexes—run by the
industry to promote the industry—sheepishly say there is nothing they
can do about such survivor bias other than hope it doesn't bias their
indexes too much.
Another huge source of bias arises from hedge funds
inflating the reported values of their portfolios. If you find this hard
to believe, read the Wall Street Journal. We are in the midst of
a market meltdown stemming from aggressive subprime mortgage lending.
Those subprime mortgages were repackaged as collateralized debt
obligations (CDOs), many of which landed in hedge fund portfolios.
Industry participants acknowledge that, should the hedge funds try to
sell, the CDO market will collapse.
Let's make this clear. The hedge funds are holding
illiquid securities and valuing them at prices they could not receive if
they tried to sell them today. Stated another way, they are overvaluing
their portfolios, and their brokers are lending credibility to it by
serving up inflated indicative prices for the securities. Investors are
burned, not only because their investments are worth far less than they
are being told, but also because they are having to pay the hedge funds
fees based on the inflated valuations. The hedge fund indexes dutifully
record the inflated valuations, adding to the myth of hedge fund
outperformance.
Why do the brokers stand by the hedge funds? Why
shouldn't they!? I don't have reliable figures, but I estimate that
brokers earn $30 billion a year in commissions from their hedge fund
clients. That is a staggering sum, even by Wall Street standards. That
pot of gold is the reason the hedge fund industry exists as it does
today. Fifteen years ago, the things that are going on would have been
illegal. In the 1990s, when we were distracted by Bill Clinton and a
semen-stained dress, lobbyists for the brokerage industry quietly had a
few laws and regulations changed. Then the hype started, and hedge funds
proliferated. Then Long-Term Capital Management failed, but the hype
kept coming. The hedge fund train had left the station, and nothing was
going to stop it. Another Wall Street success story! Print the bonus
checks.
One fly in the ointment is the troublesome fact
that the hedge funds can't really produce the returns that are claimed
for them. This can be hidden from the media and general public, since
the industry has no disclosure requirements, but it can't be hidden from
the investors in those actual funds—at least not over the long-term.
Those investors won't know how other hedge funds are doing, but they
will know that their own hedge funds have disappointed. They will pull
their money and the hedge funds will fold. Every year, thousands of
hedge funds quietly shut down without any sort of public announcement or
explanation. This means the brokerage industry needs to replace them or
lose the $30 billion pot of gold. Other clients don't have 1000% annual
turnover rates the way hedge funds do, so they don't generate nearly the
same commissions. The brokers need new hedge funds to replace the ones
closing down, and they actively help launch them. They pony up advice,
office space, systems and client introductions. Today, if you have a
pulse and a firm handshake, you can launch a hedge fund. Just call your
broker. They will do the rest.
It is great for the brokers, and it is a sure thing
for the newbie hedge fund managers. Imagine that your broker sets you up
with a $250 million hedge fund. Even if your performance is atrocious,
you will be earning $5 million a year in management fees. Hold on for
two years, and you will be rich. You might even get lucky and have
positive returns, so your 20% performance fee kicks in. You could walk
away with $20 million after two years. It doesn't matter. Win or lose,
you are going to make a killing.
Your broker is also going to make a killing. There
is no contractual obligation for you to trade frenetically, but you
will. The broker will review your account periodically. If they are
unsatisfied with their commission income from your account, they will
increase your commission rate. Hedge fund managers know where they
stand. They trade frenetically.
The brokers need the hedge funds, and the hedge
funds need the brokers. They are getting rich together, and this being
Wall Street, there are favors. The brokers get tired of having to
constantly launch new hedge funds, so they try to boost hedge fund
returns. When a mutual fund or other institutional investor places a
large order to buy or sell stocks with the broker, it let's the hedge
fund know in advance, so it can frontrun the trade. This is illegal, and
the SEC wants to investigate, but it is very difficult to prove. The
tip-off doesn't exactly come over the recorded line.
Now suppose the broker is underwriting a CDO backed
by subprime mortgages. The CDO is broken into various tranches. Some
have little credit risk, and they are easy to sell to investors. Others
have more credit risk, and they are more difficult to sell. A few are
"toxic waste," and no one wants to touch them. The hedge fund does the
broker a favor and buys the toxic waste. They don't really want it, but
as long as things don't come unglued, they can carry it for years in
their portfolio at inflated valuations. The broker will provide the
necessary indicative quotes. Is it any surprising that Bear Stearns was
active in the subprime CDO market, and two hedge funds they launched
were sitting on subprime toxic waste? In that case, of course, things
came a little unglued.
If I had my way, legislators around the world would
shut down the entire hedge fund industry. That is not likely to happen.
Joseph Stalin once ask rhetorically "How many divisions has he got?” If
the brokerage industry asked how many lobbyists I had, I would have to
admit to having none.
Glyn A. Holton
|
|